Sorry, I misspoke. They are plates with holes. You thread the provided wires onto the mounting bolts, push the bolts and wires up into the frame rails, with the wires through the hole in the plate, then push the plate through the key hole slot in the frame rail and pull the bolt through the hole. The hole is square, and the square shoulder on the carriage bolt locks into the square hole in the plate. The plate keeps the carriage bolt from turning as you tighten the nut, below the hitch frame, to fasten the hitch frame to the car's frame rail. You will see and understand all of this once you have the hitch in front of you. You won't see or understand if you don't have the hitch.

I'm not pissed off. When you begin a sentence with "As a Physicist,------" and then proceed to misunderstand the design of air shocks, and insist "they MUST be stiffer if they carry more weight than stock shocks", you are rejecting the explanation and advice being given from people who have personal experience with them. It is merely frustrating, and I reacted to the frustration. My personal desire is for you to get the best comfort and performance from your car, not to sell you anything.

 

Thanks... that is an awesome pic. I was able to pull it into CAD, scale it and get everything I need after cross-checking with your numbers to make sure it makes sense.

I think the Thule will be fine now. Checking your numbers helped me realized that the curvature of the rear bumper keeps it from being as close as I naively thought. The wheel trays would touch by about 0.25" if they were in the middle of the bumper, but they aren't... those protrusions are far off to the sides. However... the Thule IS going to be a lot closer than the Yakima.

Edit: went out in the rain and and took some measurements of the bumper shape. I have a feeling the Thule will fit, but be too close for comfort. I also like the looks of the Yakima more, so I'm guessing that's the way I'll have to go. One more key to carry: oh well.

 

OK, thanks. On the keyhole: that's exactly what I thought. I wish there was a way to get those plates into the frame rail without the keyhole, but I understand that this is probably more trouble than it is worth.

I never said the airshocks were stiffer. I only said they should be stiffer. However, nobody here seems to know for sure whether they are or not since it is really impossible to judge that by the seat of the pants. I've made suspension changes on other cars and motorcycles that increased the spring rates and/or damping of one or more circuits and ended up with a ride that is subjectively "smoother".

 

Glad I could help.

 

So can anyone confirm that a Thule T2 917 will fit in the draw tie or hidden hitch receiver? Also wanted to confirm, you basically need the metal file to make the rear holes a little bigger to fit the square spaces into the rail?

 

On the Thule... don't count on it. I haven't tried yet but unless I am missing something, it is going to be VERY close.

 

Sorry I should clarify. I know the rack will fit in the 1 1/4" socket, but will the Thule T2 be able to sit folded up without hitting the rear of the FIT when I have it in stow away. There aren't any local places around me to try this out.

 

Your question was clear. The answer is, we don't know yet. It will be very close.

 

Well, I just ordered the drawtie hitch and T2 917 Bike Rack. Will post pics once I get them.

 

Please do. I'm also wanting to know if this will work but am so busy the hitch is still in the box here.

 

Any news on the Thule? Got my hitch on so now I need to decide.

 

I have the hitch installed but I've been too lazy to put the T2 together. it's been sitting in the garage for about a week now. If the weathers good this weekend I'll put it together and confirm.

 

I just installed the T2 on 2009 Fit. Wanted to confirm for those that wanted to know that it fits perfectly. You can fold it up and there was also enough clearance to open the hatch with a 26" wheel bike on it when tilted down. This is with the drawtie hitch.

 

Thanks for posting back: I'm sure it will help people out. In the end I decided to go with the Saris Thelma (half the weight of the T2) because there have been several cases of frame damage from the T2 and the Holdup mounted on Civics, Fits and other light unibody cars: my local rack shop showed me pictures of damage that made me queasy.

What I really want is the Kuat NV, but from what I hear it won't be available until late Summer.

Kuat - Home

Interbike 2008 - Kuat Bike Racks Bike Rumor

Very slick: if the Thelma doesn't please me I'll ebay it and get one of these when available.

 

I can't imagine the Racks weight causing damage. It's only 50 pounds or so. The NV does look kinda cool though. I'll try out this rack for a bit. If its no good I'll try out other options.

 

First, it's 60 lbs. plus bikes, so that can be 130 lbs. according to spec. Second, the equivalent tongue weight is at least twice the weight of the rack+bikes. The cartoon version goes like this:

The factor that limits the tongue weight is the ability of the rear mounting point of the hitch to resist having the plate pull out from the hole. The ball has more than a factor of two leverage on that mounting point, so 200 lbs. of tongue weight (Class I limit) pulls with about 500 lbs. on those rear mounting points. Now, the rack puts a torque on the tongue... something that a trailer sitting on the ball cannot do (because it is a ball joint). As a result, the rack extends the tongue and magnifies whatever load is placed on it by a factor of roughly two (more if there are bikes moving the CG back, less if it is the rack only.) So... if you have 50 lbs of bikes on a T2, it can easily be equivalent to more than 200 lbs dead weight on the ball. Add to that shock loads from bouncing up and down over bumps, and you can have some pretty big impact loads on those rear mounting points: 500 lb. transients or more per side are definitely possible. If you installed the hitch, you know how thin the steel of those frame rails is, and the damage I saw pictures of was backing plates that had almost pulled out of those holes, which then damages the rails around the front mounting points, as well.

If you have light bikes and drive only smooth roads, I'd guess you will be OK, but one big bump could do serious damage, so I'd say be careful. BTW, the Yakima says Class II and above only, and it weighs the same as the Thule (but is slightly longer so leverage factor is even worse.)

 

Aaaaaargh! This is killing me

So I've been going back and forth whether or not to get a "wheel-grabbing-style" rack (like the Thule T2 or Yak Hold Up) or a "hanging-style" rack (like the Thule Helium or Kuat Beta).

Cons for wheel-grab racks:

1. Posts like DocPhyzyx's that talk about messing up the car from too much weight on the back
2. One of the main bikes I ride has a 4" wide front tire that won't fit into the trays of the T2 (waaay too wide). I do have a different front wheel for this bike, but I don't want to have to worry about carrying with me all the time.

Cons for hanging-bike racks:

1. Wacky frame designs of my and my wife's bikes. I tried mine on both the Helium and Beta racks. They don't fit in the cradles as-is because of their small triangles and super slanted top tubes. I know, I know, there are the top tube bar adapters, but I so want it to work without them.

In the end, since I am more worried about messing up the car's frame more than messing up my bikes, I may go with the Kuat, and deal with the top tube adapter. However, I really want to get the Thule T2. Aaaaargh!!!

Damn mixte frames!

 

Last I checked with the guys at Kuat, they were still saying September for the Kuat NV. That's not far away now and would be the best of both worlds.